Dispute Resolution: Viking

Viking
 How do you feel about your negotiation partner?

1. I would feel comfortable having this person represent me in a

one-time negotiation.
2. I would feel comfortable having this person represent me in a
negotiation where long-term relationships are important.
3. I feel this person acted in a manner consistent with ethical
business standards.
4. I am/would be comfortable negotiating with this person in the
future.
5. I think this person is an effective negotiator.

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree n/a

 Disputes vs. Negotiations

 Dispute: “A claim has been made by one party and

rejected by the other party”
 Negative emotions: people come to the table angry
 Misunderstandings and misinterpretations
Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes
Interests
Attempt to understand the other’s underlying needs,
Power desires, concerns
Reconcile differing interests in a way that addresses
needs
Rights Rights
Independent standards with perceived legitimacy or
fairness, contractual, legal, norms, etc.
Interests Focus on contracts, legal rights, precedents, norms
“I deserve this…”; “This is fair…”

Power
Ability to coerce someone to do something he or she
would not otherwise do
Use of status, rank, threats, contests, voting, strikes,
war
 Interests, Rights, and Power in Viking
Pat Sandy
Capitalize on investment
Avoid bankruptcy;
Interest opportunities: lakefront
Keep team together
property, hotel
Fawn’s authority to amend
Contract: all changes must contract based on past
Rights
be in writing practice; acted in Pat’s best
interests
Contract: ability to force
Sandy into bankruptcy;
Power Ability to declare bankruptcy
provide future work for
Sandy’s team
 Which Approach Is Better?
Four criteria for analysis
– Transaction costs
– Satisfaction with outcomes & process
– Effect on the relationship
– Recurrence
“Reconciling interests tends to generate a higher level of mutual
satisfaction with outcomes than determining rights and power. If
the parties are more satisfied, their relationship benefits, and the
dispute is less likely to recur.”

BUT… It is not always possible

to reconcile interests.
 When to Use Rights or Power

 When the other party will not come to the negotiating

table
 When the negotiations are at an impasse and all
attempts to focus on interests have been exhausted
 When negotiations are moving toward agreement
and the parties are positioning themselves
– May anchor the agreement more favorably on your
side
 Risks of Rights- or Power-Based Disputes
 Very difficult to return to a focus on interests
 May make counterpart more angry and competitive
 People may become committed to their public
threats and power claims, making any concessions
difficult to achieve
 People may reciprocate threats, etc. – escalation of
conflict
 Dangerous if you have not researched the situation
thoroughly
 Dangerous when you have low power
 When Using a Threat…
Express WILLINGNESS
Show willingness by going public
Make your demands sufficiently reasonable so that the other side knows that you
are willing and able to comply with them

Consider the other parties’ INTERESTS

Understand the costs/benefits of the threat to parties

SAVE FACE
If you don’t follow through you lose credibility and power
Find a way for the other side to save face

Be EXACT in your threat

Say what you are going to do and when you are going to do it
Be specific about what the counterpart can do to prevent you following-through
 When Using Rights-Based Approach
Right-Based Interest-Based
 Advantage: Establish position of  Advantage: Increase
strength from which to negotiate probability of discovering an
 Disadvantage: Difficult to get integrative agreement
back to interests if immersed in
rights-based battle  Disadvantage: Vulnerable to
appearing weak

Open with rights and quickly segue into interests

Avoids consequences of appearing weak without a
rights-based battle
Interest-based agreements are easier to enforce
 Bringing Rights & Power Negotiators
Back to Interests
Don’t reciprocate with rights and power – refocus
Be a role model (don’t gloat and don’t blame!)
Apologize (even if it’s not your fault)
Don’t get personal
Remain calm
Ask questions, offer information
A cautiously cooperative approach that focuses on the future and
solutions (problem-solving), not the past and blame
Reciprocate, but add an interest-based proposal
Multiple offers simultaneously, anchoring and making concessions,
possible delay in implementation (of costs in particular)
 Bringing Rights & Power Negotiators
Back to Interests

 Try a process intervention

– Comment on the process (“we could yell at each other for the next
hour, but…”), label the process, “let’s cool off…”, paraphrasing what’s
happened
– Ignore threat, make a joke, reinterpret as aspiration, let them vent off
their anger (don’t reward obstinate behavior with concessions)
– Disarm them – active listening, acknowledgment without agreeing,
agreeing wherever you can
 Change the players
 Find a graceful exit for all parties
 When in the Low Power Position
 Improve your BATNA if possible
 Overcome your weakness by understanding and using
their weakness
 Identify and use your distinctive value proposition
 Don’t reveal that you are weak
 Threats??
 Moral appeals? Reframing the situation?
 Build a coalition
 Attack their source of power
 Negotiation Toolbox: Dispute Resolution
 Disputes vs. negotiations
– BATNAs are linked in disputes
– People come to the table angry
– Consider carefully whether to focus on interests, rights, or power
 There is a time to use rights and power
– Getting other side to the table, steering from impasse toward settlement, securing
good deal for self
 There is a way to use rights and power
– Open with rights and quickly segue into interests
– Stay focused on interests as long as possible, interest-based agreements are easier
to enforce
– Wise threats show willingness to follow through, target interests, save face, and
are exact
 Defuse threats
– Lead back to interests via behavioral reinforcement, role modeling, self-discipline,
and apologizing